<p>
</p>
<p>I’m sure they do, and even though it doesn’t benefit me in any way since neither H nor I are employed by a university, I’m not sure I think it’s a bad thing. Loyalty to good employees should count for something too. I certainly don’t blame a university for putting a thumb on the scale for faculty kids - or the kids of the janitor, either.</p>
<p>So many of these bitter posts are indicative of the craziness that has been infused into the whole college application process. It is so out of hand. I blame the schools and their constantly changing and contradictory trends-- early decision, no early decision; deferred, wait-listing; eliminating test scores, taking every test under the sun, allowing unlimited test scores (which only encourages students to take tests over and over again–and parents paying for it every time-- stretching out the stressing over testing!); biased college guides (biased against the state schools, low-profile schools and religious schools); and so on.</p>
<p>From the application fees, to the lengthy application, to the college test prep, test fees, fees for submission of scores, the requirement of “demonstrated interest,” the ‘wait list/
deferred’ status to keep kids on the hook, to the fact that some of these schools are now recruiting globally. </p>
<p>We ask these kids to put their heart and soul into the applications, have awesome test scores, great grades, and a full range of activities and interests, be worldly and of good character. </p>
<p>It’s amazing they survive the process without needing therapy.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>??? I think you’re misattributing someone else’s words to me! I never said this, at all.</p>
<p>I think he means me. It’s an alliteration thing…</p>
<p>Igloo, I could be wrong, I suppose, though I would suggest reading “the price of admission” and “the power of priviledge”…both well-reviewed and well-researched books on this issue, the former written by a pulitzer prize winning journalist…the second wrtten by an author who also followed this process at Oxford and also the dismantling of this process at Oxford.</p>
<p>I have no dog in this fight. Niether or my kids have interest in the Ivy League, for various reasons…one a recruited athlete IS being recruited by the Ivies, but thinks you’d have to be insane to want to go to a place like that (she’s not a world beater student), the other will probably go top 5 or 10 for grad school, but didn’t want to even deal with it all for undergrad…she was tired of the ratrace. I support these decisions.</p>
<p>However, it is impossible to present this system as if there are not inherent advantages to a tremendous number of students.</p>
<ol>
<li> They need economic diversity.<br></li>
<li> They need racial diversity.</li>
<li> They need international diversity.</li>
<li> They need to get a certain number of developmental admits to pay for 1 & 2, longterm.</li>
<li> They need a sports team.</li>
<li> They need and want an orchestra</li>
<li> They preference the children of the politicallly connected</li>
<li> They preference the children of legacies (though admittedly cannot admit every legacies child)</li>
<li> They preference the students of faculty and employees</li>
</ol>
<p>These schools when choosing a class are working with probably at least 5 clases they could choose…particularly Harvard and Yale…I like Endicott’s post, #94. I think it is the most useful thing that has been said on this thread. fwiw I’m not even saying this is “wrong.” What I’m saying is that it is unrealistic to believe that there is any way to gauge if you will be accepted to one of these place based on test scores and GPA and rigor or courses, which makes it subjective, which…etc… But so what?</p>
<p>In life it’s really the same way.</p>
<p>… I’ve heard “talk” of the unhooked students competing for "10-12’ % of the spots at an Ivy…?</p>
<p>Pizzagirl, By unhooked, did you mean something else, I guess?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The “system” has been rigged for decades - maybe centuries. The top schools have never been pure meritocracies, where top grades/SATs meant automatic admissions. While many accepted students today have “hooks,” there are probably a lot more unhooked students at the Ivies now than 50 years ago. </p>
<p>90% of the students who applied to the tippy top schools didn’t get in. Most were uber qualified. Even if colleges denied admission to every “unqualified” legacy, football player, facbrat and North Dakotan applicant, thousands of vals with high SATs would still get denied.</p>
<p>poetgirl, I think those are honorable intentions and should be maintained even though it makes tough competition for the rest of us. What is the percentage of admits based on those? As far as it remains small, I don’t have any problem. By small, I mean up to 10-20%.</p>
<p>About private schools:
My son is graduating from a top private school this year.
This school had every sport/EC to offer that one could imagine.
He did well academically (A- average), 2190 SAT and was captain of a varsity team.</p>
<p>He applied to 10 colleges and got 5 acceptances, 4 rejections and a waitlist.</p>
<p>I actually think if he had the exact same stats coming from our local public school (which is also very highly rated) he would have done better with college admissions. here’s why:</p>
<p>You are competing with the other students from your school. The colleges will deny this, but they are flat-out lying. I’m not saying they have a quota system whereby they will only admit a certain number from a given HS, but what they will do is compare students from a given HS to each other. If a large number of students from a HS are applying to a particular top university (as will be the case with private schools) then you are going to have a harder time getting admitted.</p>
<p>Private schools will offer you a great education… but they are far from the “Golden Ticket” that some think.</p>
<p>Igloo, I think one way to see what a school is trying to achieve is to look at the pre=acceptance press releases. One thing they all feature is the # of first generation college students. There’s a lot going on that’s right, for sure. It’s just that there are finite number of spaces, and if a school has an agenda or 10, a lot of really stellar students who do not meet the criteria aren’t really being considered.</p>
<p>It’s not as if they are comparing apples to apples, stats to stats, like some state schools; and so…it’s a different kind of thing.</p>
<p>As I said, however, I don’t think this is “wrong.” I just think it is good to say what it is. A lot of kids believe they are being judged on thier potential, or thier academic ability in this process, when those are just the minimum requirements to be considered. Then, they ask other questions, and some can be along the lines of, “Do we need a clarinetist?” “How many Siemen’s winner’s do we have?” “What about the quarterback?” “Do we have any people who were the star in Much Ado About Nothing?” This year.</p>
<p>That’s all.</p>
<p>Let’s not lose the sight of a big picture. They are first of all judged by their academics. Only ones with impeccable academics will be in the running for a spot. And 80% of spots are still available. There they have about 50% chance getting in. Not bad. All thanks to their impeccable academic achievement. If the kid had a little less impeccable record, the chance will be about 1 in 3. That’s still pretty good. S/he will get in one of the three Ivies the kid applied to. Let’s do not tell our kids it’s useless how hard they work at school that someone else with connections will get their spot.</p>
<p>I couldn’t shake this off my head; OP, a dentist dad and a mom on the school board feels that his kids are not previlleged enough. If they are not, how are the rest in the country about 90% of parents supposed to feel?</p>
<p>Nobody has a 50% chance of getting admitted to the Ivies, regardless of stats.</p>
<p>However, I would never, nor would anyone on this board ever, tell their kids it is useless how hard they work in school. Also, the implication that working hard should be focused towards getting into one of these schools is actually the false argument.</p>
<p>There are so many amazing educational opportunities in this country. This is not concentrated in the top 20 universities, which, btw, aren’t even compared to the top 20 LAC’s, which aren’t even compared to the top 20 Baccualette (I can never spell that right :() schools. There are hundreds upon hundreds of places to get a fantastic and edifying education in this country, just starting with the 50 flagships and going from there. It’s just true.</p>
<p>I am a planner. When I want something, I figure out HOW to get from A to B, and try to leave chance out of it. </p>
<p>Yes, I sent my kids to private school from K-12 with the thought of 1) getting a great education, 2) getting a leg up in college application. D1 ended up getting a great education, was very challenged at school, but I am not sure if it really helped her with her college process. My kids were encouraged to have a few focused ECs because 1) that’s how you get to be good at something, 2) colleges seem to like that. D1 ended up with ballet. She loved it and it is still part of her life. I don’t think she got extra point (or recruited) because of ballet, but she was able to write some good essays of her experience and to show her passion.</p>
<p>D1 did many things in high school with getting into top tier schools in mind, but nothing she did was going to be a waste if she wasn’t able to get into a top school. We still don’t regret in tuitions we paid from K-12. We think it’s the best money spent, even more so than college.</p>
<p>Now, getting back to OP…It’s HIS problem as a parent to be ignorant about the college process. You don’t have to be in the upper class, or in the NE to know what top tier schools are looking for. He could easily have ordered a book from Amazon if it was important to him and his daughter. I am not even saying going to top tier school should be everyone’s goal. But if it’s something he wanted for his child and it was hid child’s goal, then he had no excuse in not having done the research. He can’t claim the game was unfair because he didn’t read the rules. </p>
<p>Both D1 and us are very much at peace on what we did for her (paying for her private school education), how hard she worked in high school, even though she didn’t get into her #1 choice, there is no regret because we all did the best we could. There is no “could have,” “should have”…</p>
<p>My DD made a briliant observation a few months back about the college process when her smartest friend wasn’t admitted to a tiptop private, but a very, very, very wealthy (but not terribly intelligent- she’s the first to admit it) was. She said, “It’s like Pokemon. If you have a Lugia-EX, you play it. Why wouldn’t you? The point is winning”. URM, first gen, money, athletics, grades, whatever. It’s a crapshoot, throw it all in there and hope for the best.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Most of the applicants are just ordinary kids, bright, well-rounded, big fish in the tiny pond of a single high school.</p>
<p>There certainly are some applicants for whom the chance of admission is 50% or better. The top ones, the best ones, the ones whose intellectual achievement shines outside the local scene.</p>
<p>…okay…I’m sure you are right.</p>
<p>My observation is that hype about Ivy’s is overblown, anybody can do very well everywhere and challenged academically beyond any expectations. It is very true even in regard to academic superstars valedictorians from private expensive Country Day Schools. Anybody who wishes so, could be challenged at any place and find very many meanningful opportunities. It is much more up to a kid, then place.<br>
Looking back from standpoint of parent of college senior who has never had single “B” in her life so far and who had to work exceptionally hard to achieve that at state college, where opportunities for kids like that are beyond any of our expectations.</p>
<p>frazzled1’s post 99 was just outstanding, but particularly this paragraph:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Look, lots of us here, can describe “negative” or disappointing outcomes of friends, associates, loved ones, with regard to admissions, including myself. Because a certain poster becomes ballistic and I so rather prefer the rational tone of the recent responses, I’m not even going to mention particulars of the situation. I’ll be broad enough to state that a different object of affection had the misfortune to – while within range (like so many others) of a top 10 U – have that Elitle U literally lose all of her application materials. This did not become apparent until after April 1st, when there was no response, + or -, from the U. My response? On April 1, after April 1, and today, I felt zero bitterness. It was “unfair” that many people like her did get accepted and she wasn’t even reviewed. But who cares? That’s life! It doesn’t mean that she didn’t “have merit,” for heaven’s sakes. Nothing was “rigged.” It was an accident, and in my mind – then and now, undoubtedly for the better – like many things in life. She is probably exactly where she should be. I didn’t come onto CC and claim that she deserved better or that she would have been accepted; we don’t know that she would have been accepted; we’ll never know that, and it doesn’t matter. (With the thousands of applications, I’m surprised such accidents don’t happen more often!)</p>
<p>The poster givings summarized the ‘craziness’ of it all, and it seems that maybe that’s what the OP actually meant to say, but unfortuantely it came off as a slam against the Elites and the education the Elites provide, not to mention those who dared to compete with his D. The problem, in addition to the point oldfort made, that </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>is that apparently both parents and students get caught up in the illusion that acceptance to an Ivy = personal worth. It equals no such thing. It’s a statement, in time, of whom that Ivy wishes to select, on a variety of measures, to achieve a variety of goals. Parents with S’s and D’s at Ivies do not have more “worthy” children; those who do not, do not have less “worthy” children. Second, personal worth is clearly a subjective judgment. But there’s no need to engage in a slash-and-burn campaign against the admitted students, and their parents, as somehow suspect in their quality and their intentions.</p>
<p>It is particularly odd to “get personal” (negatively) about elite admissions when we have such wonderful alternatives in this country. Every time I look at that NYT photo of the Indian students standing there anxiously awaiting score results, I thank heaven that I live in the western world. Those who claim that they want a “merit-only” system have no idea what they’re talking about. They would sing a different tune if they saw the results of such a system. It makes our “craziness” look tame by comparison. You want your future determined by a score? I don’t think so.</p>
<p>Be careful what you wish for.</p>
<p>Maybe our (large public) high school is weird, but above a certain SAT score and a certain GPA year after year 50% of the applicants get into Harvard.</p>
<p>best post on this thread: givings</p>
<p>Not only do the applicants have to have all of those things, but they have to accept all rejections with a smile while admitting that everyone that got in was better. If they say anything negative then they are bitter and that is a character flaw that kept them from getting in. no truth allowed, even if the system is rigged, you have to pretend it’s not.</p>
<p>As long as admissions is “holistic”, it will subjective and many applicants will be chosen based on the perceived needs of the school instead of pure scholastic achievements, although some will still be chosen for their scholastic achievements. </p>
<p>High school kids who think that they will only have an opportunity to be surrounded by intellectuals if they attend an elite school are sadly mistaken. Read dana’s account of her childrens’ roommates at Dartmouth and Princeton post #72. Intellectuals can be found everywhere and so can morons. </p>
<p>Honestly, I think in this economy the state schools that are offering huge scholarships for pure scholarly achievements have the edge. Many families who used to have big incomes don’t anymore. I know of successful Harvard alum who lost entire fortunes the Bernie Madoff scam. They can’t afford elites anymore because they have to rebuild their savings and their incomes still are not low enough for a “free elite ride”, so they are looking at state schools.</p>
<p>If my daughter was a senior three years ago I would not have hesitated to send her to Duke - full price. Back then part of my husband’s annual bonus would have taken care of it. Three years later, his business, still afloat but very scaled down due to the economic turn has changed our mindset. She, along with many other driven and bright kids will show up on public campuses this fall and they will find each other and make news for their schools. If this economy doesn’t turn around these public schools might become the new elites, who knows. </p>
<p>In any case I think any child able to go to college is fortunate, no matter what college route they take and they are not any less of a person for going to a non-elite school.</p>